Simple Common Sense

Earlier today I read the excellent article on gentlemen at The Times Online, where William Drew questions gentlemen as a dying breed. Apparently Dunhill, the British men’s outfitter, have asked several types to recount how a so-called NBG (New British Gentleman) behaves, what he wears and how he lives. I won’t give a summery of the whole article here but some of the more important and basic outlines include gentlemen as gallant and generous, firm, determined, yet with humour. Basically to have good manners, be chivalrous and charming and still remain dignity, and I believe we all agree on this?

The article then asks if this ‘gentlemaness’, ‘the notion that respectful, dignified behaviour, is losing out to cut-throat capitalism’? And further more states that ‘being a gentleman in politics will get you nowhere bar a long career warming the backbenches.’ The whole article also deals with gentlemen being of a certain classification in society, class wise. A very interesting point, I believe. However, is gentlemen not most of all an invention, an ideal for a part of a persons identity? I question if the ‘real gentlemen’ not sometimes fake a leg injury so he don’t have to give his seat up in the train, if he not sometimes farts in public and pretends nothing happened, if he not sometimes put the two pounds the grocery owner gave him in exchange by mistake, in his pocket and walks away?

What I am saying is simply that I don’t believe gentlemen really are the unspoiled paragon of men and their behaviour probably aren’t as flawless as one might think. Gentlemen can’t be generalized. Some of them are probably just pure sycophants, if I may be a little rude. And too be a little more anthropological here, let me paraphrase the English philosopher Hobbes (when talking of power relations, but works as well in this discourse) : what is unseen is unknown and, therefore, unlimited in its powers. It could be, or do, absolutely anything (Pye 1984 : 93-94).
So, why am I writing this? Probably because I haven’t got the guts to comment on William Drew’s article directly at The Times. Nor will there be enough space for all this blabbering.
You can possibly argue this to me pure hokum, nonetheless, to me, a gentleman has not only something to do with social status, a certain dress code, or a Blackberry. Yes, it has something to do with pretension, modesty and awareness. But I wont make a gentleman into a Kouros of nobleness (figuratively speaking - one must be careful these days). Furthermore: I do believe in the modern gentleman, and I also believe I know where to find him.

Of course my idea of the ‘new gentleman’ isn’t that far away from Drew’s. Firt of all I don’t believe in ferocious or avaricious gentlemen. But neither do I think gentlemen are part of a kind of special ‘human seraph’. To me, before I’m getting too tedious for some of you (my brother reminded me the other day of the simple idea of K.I.S (Keep It Simple), a gentleman is a person who has the backbone too be himself but at the same time be modest and generous - in both behaviour and in mind. A gentleman is the one who is aware of others (in a positive sense), and can behave in various social classes and milieux. He is not necessarily wearing a suit, a tie, or any formal wear, but he is a person who is not scared of doing the right thing (whenever it is needed of him of course). A gentleman, say James Bond, can go home at night with his head up - even to go home and eat pizza from the pack and drink beer from the bottle (just like the pictures I have uploaded of my gentleman friends, right right?).

All pictures above are taken and copyrighted by Christian Halsted ®